IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Harijana Uligappa - Appellant
Versus
Circle Inspector of Police, Karnool – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 733 of 2008
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Extra-Judicial Confession - Criminal Revision Case - Ss. 304-A and 201 of I.P.C. - [Ss. 304-A, 201 of I.P.C.] - The judgment discusses the irregularities and suspicious circumstances surrounding the extra-judicial confession under Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. The court found serious infirmities in the case of the prosecution and held that the extra-judicial confession did not meet the requirements of well-established principles. The judgment, dtd. 13/5/2008 in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, was not legally sustainable and was set aside, leading to the acquittal of the Revision Petitioners of the offences under Ss. 304-A and 201 of I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction and sentencing of the accused (A.1 and A.2) for the offences under Ss. 304-A and 201 of I.P.C. The prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in the deaths of two individuals due to electrocution and subsequent burial of the bodies to conceal evidence. The prosecution heavily relied on the extra-judicial confession under Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14 as evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious irregularities and suspicious circumstances surrounding the extra-judicial confession under Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. It held that the prosecution failed to prove that the confession was voluntary and free from blemish. The judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge was deemed legally unsustainable and was set aside, leading to the acquittal of the Revision Petitioners of the offences under Ss. 304-A and 201 of I.P.C.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability and admissibility of the extra-judicial confession under Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. The court also addressed the lack of corroboration and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the well-established principles regarding extra-judicial confessions, highlighting the need for corroboration and the requirement for the confession to be voluntary and free from blemish. It held that suspicion, however grave, cannot be a substitute for proof, and it is the prosecution's responsibility to establish the veracity of the confession.
Final Decision: The judgment, dtd. 13/5/2008 in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, was set aside, leading to the acquittal of the Revision Petitioners of the offences under Ss. 304-A and 201 of I.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J.
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners, who were the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni ("Additional Sessions Judge" for short), challenging the judgment, dtd. 13/5/2008, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants in C.C.No.38 of 2003, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur, for the offences under Ss. 304-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short).
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Alur, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.43 of 2002 of Holagunda Police Station, alleging the offences under Ss. 304-A and 201 of I.P.C.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charged sheet is as follows:
(ii) Deceased 1 and 2 were doing arrack business since about one year prior to their death. Ten days prior to 19/8/2002, they died. They used to go to Hadligi village in Karnataka State to bring the arrack sachets and used to sell the same in their village, Santhakudluru. As usual, they went to Hadligi village to purchase arrack sachets about 10 days prior to 19/8/2002. On 10/8/2002 or 9/8/2002 while they were returning with arrack sachets during night time to avoid police and Excise officers, they came near Chinnaheta village in Holagunda Mandal. On the way, they came into contact with the electrical wire put up around the fields of A.1 to protect his Sunflowers crop from animals. So, the deceased 1 and 2 contacted with electricity and died on the spot. On the next day morning, A.1 went to his fields and found two dead bodies fallen in the fields with two bags of arrack sachets by their side. Having noticed the dead bodies and found that they died due to electrocution from the electric wire fenced by him, he feared and tried to conceal the same. He disclosed the incident to A.2 during night. Both A.1 and A.2 with an intention to screen away the evidence of the death of deceased 1 and 2, at about 10- 00 p.m., took the two dead bodies along with two bags of arrack sachets in a double bullock cart from the fields of A.1. They took the dead bodies to cantor trench situated near Chakaligutta and the fields of one Gowramma. They buried two dead bodies in the said trench and also two bags of arrack sachets. They did not disclose the incident to anybody till 29/8/2002.
(iii) Ten days subsequent to the burial of the dead bodies by A.1 and A.2, rumors spread in the village that two dead bodies were buried in the cantor trench. On that L.W.1-Reddy Seetharami Reddy, Village Secretary and L.W.6-Talari Dodda Basappa went to the said place on 19/8/2002 at 8-00 p.m. They found two dead bodies and two bags of arrack sachets there. L.W.1 gave report to Sub-Inspector of Police, Holagunda Police Station and on his report, the Head Constable registered it as a case in Crime No.43 of 2003 under Ss. 302 and 201 of I.P.C. suspecting that both of them were murdered. The Inspector of Police, Aluru, during investigation found that they were not murdered, but they died due to electrocution due to live electric wire put up by A.1 around fields and after coming to know that A.1 and A.2 buried the said dead bodies to screen the evidence.
(iv) On 29/8/2002 both the accused approached L.W.13- Harijana Dasari Krishna Murthy and dis
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for extra-judicial confessions to be voluntary, free from blemish, and corroborated by reliable evidence. The court emphasized that....
The convicting based solely on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions requires corroborative proof and must adhere to well-established principles regarding such evidence.
Extrajudicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on them must be cautious and supported by credible evidence.
Extra-judicial confessions can support convictions if corroborated by independent evidence; circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt.
Extrajudicial confessions require corroboration and cannot solely establish guilt without reliable evidence.
In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events connecting t....
Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring corroboration and should be credible; reliance on insufficient evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
For a conviction based on extra-judicial confession, corroborative evidence is essential, and any substantial contradictions in testimonies undermine its reliability.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.